JTR: Not even the skill of a butcher?

[JSchmidt]

It is a fact that Dr Bond committed suicide, and it may have a bearing on his forebearance.
This is NOT a conspiracy theory.It is what happened.

I admit that I phrased my answer somewhat harshly. I just wanted to point out the caveat that we have to examine the facts first and without information have to refrain from forming theories that might unduly influence our judgements regarding the facts.
I did not dispute that it happened, I only see no immediate connection to the case.
Without further information we can only speculate on what caused him to commit suicide. There is a multitude of possible causes which are neither related with the case as such nor connected with the police officers.
If you have information that supports your theory I will gladly listen to it.

[Natalie Severn]

Emphasis mine, unless you offer proof of any connection between his suicide and the murders in 1888 this is not relevant to the case.
Conspiracy theories tend to get in the way of fact based discussions.

It is a fact that Dr Bond committed suicide, and it may have a bearing on his forebearance.
This is NOT a conspiracy theory.It is what happened.

[Natalie Severn]

No, Nats. That's your interpretation of his character, and I'd respectfully submit that it's a wrong one. Robert Anderson was not interested in the "canonical five" since he arrived at a very different conclusion to that of Bond and Macnaghten. Anderson thought Tabram was a ripper victim, whereas Macnaghten didn't and nor, apparently, did Bond. Moreover, there's no evidence that either Anderson or McN favoured McKenzie, whereas Bond did.

Different conclusions from three officials on the issue of a "canon". No unison here at all, and thus no reason to infer than anyone personality was dominating or bullying another.

Best regards,
Ben

At this juncture,Ben, I would respectfully suggest that you re-read the shifty shenanigans that went on "after hours" down at the mortuary where Rose Mylett"s corpse was "examined" by Robert Anderson who,playing at "doctors", had taken poor Dr Bond by the scruff and disputed his findings -insisting that his initial findings were incorrect.This resulted in Dr Bond making a complete pratt of himself in front of his Boss, the Police Surgeon -in Chief ,Alexander MacKellar and four other Police Surgeon colleagues,telling each and every one they were wrong and he was right and had revised his initial opinion!
Best
Nats

[JSchmidt]

For some reason Dr Bond committed suicide.

Emphasis mine, unless you offer proof of any connection between his suicide and the murders in 1888 this is not relevant to the case.
Conspiracy theories tend to get in the way of fact based discussions.

[Ben]

Well thats where we part company Ben.Dr Bond was a weak man who may in fact have been bullied by Anderson

No, Nats. That's your interpretation of his character, and I'd respectfully submit that it's a wrong one. Robert Anderson was not interested in the "canonical five" since he arrived at a very different conclusion to that of Bond and Macnaghten. Anderson thought Tabram was a ripper victim, whereas Macnaghten didn't and nor, apparently, did Bond. Moreover, there's no evidence that either Anderson or McN favoured McKenzie, whereas Bond did.

Different conclusions from three officials on the issue of a "canon". No unison here at all, and thus no reason to infer than anyone personality was dominating or bullying another.

Best regards,
Ben

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Nats,

Bond was bought in by Anderson because Bond was one of the most respected medical professionals around at the time (he was, at the very least, "higher profile" than Phillips, for example). To suggest that Bond was paid or encouraged to lie about his findings, and potentially jeapordize further lives is a pretty serious charge, and not one I can subscribe to. The fact that he was specifically brought in my police from "outside" merely suggests that his judgement was particularly trusted.

Best regards,
Ben

Well thats where we part company Ben.Dr Bond was a weak man who may in fact have been bullied by Anderson.
For some reason we are not yet clear about , Robert Anderson and Melville Macnaghten needed to establish a "canon" of Whitechapel victims ie 5 women allegedly the victims of the same serial killer.For this purpose Dr Bond was charged with drawing up a "profile" of the killer,in the wake of Mary Kelly"s murder, which he quickly produced along with this questionable notion of a "canon" of JtR victims.
Dr Bond was certainly not more qualified than the Police Surgeon-in Chief,Alexander MacKellar who was one of the five doctors he stood against and contradicted,while hiding behind Police Chief Robert Anderson"s coat tails-or, better still and in line with jokes about Anderson"s liking for fantasy at the time -Bond may have hidden behind Anderson"s Fairy Tales.
For some reason Dr Bond committed suicide.

[JSchmidt]

The dissection murders (Whitehall Mystery et al) seem to display more skill as far as I read about them, at least it was reported that the joints were cut apart in the very efficient manner of a hunter or butcher.
In this case we have an identified manner or technique that was used by a profession at that time.
Do the cuts on any of the c5 victims resemble techniques or cuts used by surgeons or butchers at that time? Training or practice is hard to shake off I suppose, so we may be able to identify specific techniques.
I may have some anatomical knowledge but I am positively sure that it will not help me if I ever had to cut to a specific organ.

In my opinion variances in the "skill" (if that is actually the right term, and not the absence of collateral damage to organs and tissues) can be attributed to the rather less than ideal circumstances and a varying agitation of the perpetrator of the crime. And slip ups may also happen when the victim does not lie in an ideal postion or the movements inside the victim's body are inhibited by space confines.

[jc007]

You haven't bothered with mine at all, JCOO7.

sorry Ben, its 3.30am here and im trying to concentrate on one debate at a time lol

[Ben]

I don't think so, you still haven't answered directly if you have enough anatomical knowledge to successfully take out a human kidney without damaging it

Huh? How do we know that the kidney wasn't damaged when it was taken out?

[jc007]

I've answered them directly, precisely and honestly. What more could one ask for?

I don't think so, you still haven't answered directly if you have enough anatomical knowledge to successfully take out a human kidney without damaging it in pitch black conditions in a very small time frame, second thing you have not answered is, how can you say with any great certainty and without being able to examine the bodies and without being a Dr, that there was absolutely no skill whatsoever. your responses were nothing more than snide remarks not direct and honest answers

[Ben]

You seem to be dancing around my questions Sam without actually answering them.

You haven't bothered with mine at all, JCOO7.

[Sam Flynn]

You seem to be dancing around my questions Sam without actually answering them.

I've answered them directly, precisely and honestly. What more could one ask for?

[jc007]

Who needs light when one has a wobbly lump firmly gripped in the palm of one's hand, and a sheet of connective tissue and tubes stretchy enough to allow a knife to pass safely through without cutting one's wrist in the process?

You seem to be dancing around my questions Sam without actually answering them.

[Sam Flynn]

Enough to cut out a kidney in pitch black conditions in a small time frame??

Who needs light when one has a wobbly lump firmly gripped in the palm of one's hand, and a sheet of connective tissue and tubes stretchy enough to allow a knife to pass safely through without cutting one's wrist in the process?

[jc007]

I'm not a doctor, but I've done my fair share of dissections, albeit not of human abdomens. However I've made enough Sunday lunches in my time to know that there's no great miracle or mystery involved in chopping bits out of a lump of meat.

Fair enough Sam but that still doesn't explain how you can say with any great certainty what kind of injuries a person sustained without being a doctor or without personally examining the injuries for yourself?